NationStates Jolt Archive

Perhaps you missed the two or three dictionary definitions, as well as a definition given from your own site? :rolleyes:
Aha. And those prove it's wrong how?

Heheh are we argueing over wether Atheisim is a lack of belive in diety, or a belive in the non existance of diety?

Man I love this one.....:D

whats the differance, and why is it sooooo important?

Aha. And those prove it's wrong how?

you reject your own source?

:p

I respond to you because it is polite to respond.
And yet you ask why I respond?

I think you have some serious problems.

How many then?
Enough that the dictionary recognises the change, perhaps?

Getting back to the root of every word is absurd. Languages evolve all the time. If you believe that they do not, perhaps you should only speak as Chaucer would have done.

Heheh are we argueing over wether Atheisim is a lack of belive in diety, or a belive in the non existance of diety?

Man I love this one.....:D

whats the differance, and why is it sooooo important?

because Baawa has to prove that I am wrong and evil.

you reject your own source?
Only the self-contradictory parts. Any logical, rational person would.

because Baawa has to prove that I am wrong and evil.
I do?

Enough that the dictionary recognises the change, perhaps?

Getting back to the root of every word is absurd. Languages evolve all the time. If you believe that they do not, perhaps you should only speak as Chaucer would have done.

So, what, if I become an editor at World Book, that's enough?

Enough that the dictionary recognises the change, perhaps?

Getting back to the root of every word is absurd. Languages evolve all the time. If you believe that they do not, perhaps you should only speak as Chaucer would have done.
So should we believe that atheism = communism?

'Bald' may not be a hair colour, but 'none' probably would be.
How can none be a hair color?

Heheh are we argueing over wether Atheisim is a lack of belive in diety, or a belive in the non existance of diety?

Man I love this one.....:D

whats the differance, and why is it sooooo important?
Damned if I know. Atheism has a doctrine: the doctrine of disbelief in God/gods. So? I am fascinated by the fact that this provokes such heated debate, but the debate itself is deeply boring and pointless.

How many then?

Ask the people of the OED, I remember they have a pretty clear definition of how many, and where. Even age plays a role for them.

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity


http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist

oh, look active belief.
Oh look, disbelief:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Thus, an atheist is one who....

Come on, you know the rest, don't you?

Only the self-contradictory parts. Any logical, rational person would.

your source does not contradict itself, it contradicts you, so you dismiss anything that contradicts you?


I do?
apparently.

So, what, if I become an editor at World Book, that's enough?
Seeing as you would have to be a recognised scholar of English to do so, it would be a start. The fact that other dictionaries would have to also recognise the change means it would not be sufficient on its own, however.

There is a clear definition of what atheism means, which Bottle has provided. If you do not accept the definition, then you need to come up with a new word to cover what you believe, because 'atheism' clearly isn't the right one for you.

Damned if I know. Atheism has a doctrine:
Then apathy has a doctrine.

I'm fascinated by people who are like the Red Queen. What makes you believe six contradictory things before breakfast?

Damned if I know. Atheism has a doctrine: the doctrine of disbelief in God/gods. So? I am fascinated by the fact that this provokes such heated debate, but the debate itself is deeply boring and pointless.

I just have nothing better to do, because the girl said no when I asked her out.

Personally, atheism is anything and everything not theism, doctrine or no. Yay dichotomies!

And Jesus most certainly WAS God; how could a mere mortal man give sight to a blind man or raise the dead?
And Zeus most certainly was god, how could a mere moral man transform himself into a swan to seduce a woman? Or place heros up into the sky?

Oh look, disbelief:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Thus, an atheist is one who....

Come on, you know the rest, don't you?

I thought you told Bottle earlier that "disbelief" is an action and that atheists have a lack of belief which is not an action.

so, now I am again confused.

your source does not contradict itself,
Actually, it does. One cannot have a doctrine for a lack of belief. That is self-contradictory.

Unless, of course, you'd like to show how a lack of belief is a belief.

Heaven, which I can only describe as being with God. What form that will take I do not know; all I can say is what I believe what will not happen. In this case, it is the idea of God punishing us eternally for a mere lifetime of sin.

I know many theologians and clergy who argue that Hell need not be a 'punishment' but simply 'without God', but, as far as I am concerned, the two are exactly the same thing.

Yes, I've heard that idea before. It makes more sense than the idea of Hell, at least.

Damned if I know. Atheism has a doctrine: the doctrine of disbelief in God/gods. So? I am fascinated by the fact that this provokes such heated debate, but the debate itself is deeply boring and pointless.

Aahhhh but only if you let it. It's very interesting for me, as I can't see the differance between. A lack of belife(which in itself is a belife) and a belife in the lack of.

Heh perhaps though if you have seen it rage over and over a million times it may get boring. For us God botherers though it never gets boring. Ohh let me ammend that, for this God botherer it never gets boring!:D

I thought you told Bottle earlier that "disbelief" is an action
It can be, but doesn't have to be. Disbelief has an active and passive voice. Bottle believes that there is only an active voice. This is contra to the dictionary.

How can none be a hair color?
[to bald person] "What's your hair colour?"
"None"

I initially becam an atheist for stupid reasons, as my mother had diued, and I felt like rebelling against god. Then I became an agnostic, as it seemed to be the open-minded thing to do. Then I sat down and thought about it and became a 'strong atheist' because I realised religion was a sociological joke. Well not s- yes actually, a joke. I truly can't believe we still buy into this crap.

Allow me to be more specific. It is the idea of the 'null hypothesis' that swayed me. That is, the scientific assumption there is nothing until you prove there is something. There is no apple in the box until you can empirically prove there is an apple in the box. It has to be this way, otherwise you end up having to disprove every possible explanation in order to reach the correct one. This is foolish.

That being said, despite the fact that I am a particularly agresive strong-atheist, I will happily convert upon reciept off reasonable evidence of god or gods. It is actually good news if it happens, because I will no longer be responsible for my actions, plus I will probably be entitled to an afterlife of some sort.

Seeing as you would have to be a recognised scholar of English to do so, it would be a start. The fact that other dictionaries would have to also recognise the change means it would not be sufficient on its own, however.

There is a clear definition of what atheism means, which Bottle has provided. If you do not accept the definition, then you need to come up with a new word to cover what you believe, because 'atheism' clearly isn't the right one for you.
And, it should be noted, one's personal dislike of the definition of a term doesn't automatically change it.

I don't like that "godless" is also defined as "wicked; evil; sinful." But I don't get to magic away definitions with my personal opinion.

[to bald person] "What's your hair colour?"
"None"
Ok, and how does that prove that none is a hair color?

And, it should be noted, one's personal dislike of the definition of a term doesn't automatically change it.

I don't like that "godless" is also defined as "wicked; evil; sinful." But I don't get to magic away definitions with my personal opinion.
Then I guess atheism is still defined as communism in the US. After all, we can't magic away definitions, can we?

Then I guess atheism is still defined as communism in the US. After all, we can't magic away definitions, can we?
See, this is where that whole "reading the dictionary" thing comes in handy. Does yours say that "communism" is an accepted definition of "atheism"? Can you find a dictionary that has that definition in it? Or was it simply what a bunch of people SAID atheism meant, contrary to the actual definition of the word?

Then I guess atheism is still defined as communism in the US. After all, we can't magic away definitions, can we?
We're saying that language is fluid, and so the relevance is the meaning of the world at this point in time. To which your response is "if language is fluid, then it must have stopped 50 years ago with a new meaning that I've just made up!"

Seriously. :rolleyes:

Damned if I know. Atheism has a doctrine: the doctrine of disbelief in God/gods. So? I am fascinated by the fact that this provokes such heated debate, but the debate itself is deeply boring and pointless.

Explicit Athesim might be arguable as having a doctrine. Implicit Atheism is just what you have left when you don't believe.

We're saying that language is fluid, and so the relevance is the meaning of the world at this point in time.
And some in the US still use atheism as a synonym for communism. Therefore, atheism means communism.

Poor you.

See, this is where that whole "reading the dictionary" thing comes in handy.
See, this is where that "common usage" thing becomes a problem. If a word also is defined by common usage, and if common usage of atheism is "wickedness" and "communism", then by gosh it means "wickedness" and "communism".

And some in the US still use atheism as a synonym for communism. Therefore, atheism means communism.
And that's in the dictionary, is it? It's not in mine, or the Oxford English. Tell me, BAAWA, where is this phantom meaning of yours?

Explicit Athesim might be arguable as having a doctrine. Implicit Atheism is just what you have left when you don't believe.
Yeah, but we've discussed my problems with "explicit" versus "implicit" atheism before. Considering that they are as radically different from one another as theism and atheism are, I find it bizarre to use the same word (atheism) to refer to these very very different philosophies. "Explicit atheism" has more in common with theism than with "implicit atheism," so those labels are goofy (in my opinion).

And, just for fun, I did a little background reading on the word "atheism." It turns out that the English term "atheism" was adopted from the French athéisme in about 1587. It has Greek roots, but is actually not consistant with the Greek usage of the terms, having already been "filtered" through usage in French. So it's even less valid to use the Greek roots as a definition for the term.

Fun fact: the words "deist" and "theist" entered English after atheism (sometime in the 1600s). They used to have the same meaning, but deism came to refer to a separate philosophical doctrine.

I also learned a new word, one which I really like: "ignosticism." Ignosticism considers the question of the existence of gods meaningless; it sees no verifiable or testable consequences to the question.

I like words!

And that's in the dictionary, is it? It's not in mine, or the Oxford English. Tell me, BAAWA, where is this phantom meaning of yours?
Well, his reasoning is at least consistant.

He says atheism has one meaning simply because he's decided it does, regardless of what the dictionary says. He is at least even-handed enough to extend this same power to all other people; "atheism" means whatever anybody says it means, in his opinion, and the dictionary definition is beside the point.

And that's in the dictionary, is it?
Common. Usage.

Isn't the meaning of the words "fluid"? Or are you going back on that statement you just made?

Poor you.

Well, his reasoning is at least consistant.

He says atheism has one meaning simply because he's decided it does,
No, simply because that's what the dictionary says.

Poor you, too.

I like words!

Wow that was nerdy.

"One of us, one of us, one of-"

"Holy crap it's a girl! *flee*"

Common. Usage.

Isn't the meaning of the words "fluid"? Or are you going back on that statement you just made?

Poor you.

There are fluidic changes that the dictionary recognises when they extend into the commonly accepted usage of the language, not a bunch of people in the American Midwest.

But, as you are so opposed to this idea of natural evolution of the language, perhaps you really should brush up on your Chaucerian English.

Yeah, but we've discussed my problems with "explicit" versus "implicit" atheism before. Considering that they are as radically different from one another as theism and atheism are, I find it bizarre to use the same word (atheism) to refer to these very very different philosophies.

And, just for fun, I did a little background reading on the word "atheism." It turns out that the English term "atheism" was adopted from the French athéisme in about 1587. It has Greek roots, but is actually not consistant with the Greek usage of the terms, having already been "filtered" through usage in French.

Fun fact: the words deist and theist entered English after atheism (sometime in the 1600s). They used to have the same meaning, but deism came to refer to a separate philosophical doctrine.

I also learned a new word, one which I really like: "ignosticism." Ignosticism considers the question of the existence of gods meaningless; it sees no verifiable or testable consequences to the question.

I like words!

I agree - words are fun... and we can work out a lot about what a word HAS meant, by examining it's structure... but we can learn almost nothing about what a word might mean NOW from it's etymology, unless we are lucky enough to find a word that actually mirrors it's root meaning. I wonder how many there are, after all this time?

It can be fun to watch Southern Baptists cautiously step around a word like 'damnation', but happily use the term 'damage' - without realise they are effectively saying the same thing. Words ARE fun.

Why do explicit and implicit atheism both use the same word, since they are so different? Simple - both are 'not theism'.... one is just active, and the other passive. That can be an importaqnt distinction - especially for someone who came to their atheism through 'skepticism'... which is why there are TWO possible 'branches' of atheism.

No, simply because that's what the dictionary says.

*Shrug* You've said that you're completely comfortable ignoring dictionary definitions when it suits you, so why should you care about what they say?

There are fluidic changes that the dictionary recognises when they extend into the commonly accepted usage of the language, not a bunch of people in the American Midwest.

But, as you are so opposed to this idea of natural evolution of the language, perhaps you really should brush up on your Chaucerian English.

The midwest?

Also, is fluidic a word?

Also, is fluidic a word?

Consider it a natural evolution to the language. ;)

There are fluidic changes that the dictionary recognises when they extend into the commonly accepted usage of the language, not a bunch of people in the American Midwest.
Ah, so if it's not accepted by everyone, then it's not common usage. How great that you get to pick-and-choose what you believe when it will contradict some other stance of yours. You just get to deny the problem exists! Beautiful.

You're pathetic.

*Shrug* You've said that you're completely comfortable ignoring dictionary definitions when it suits you, so why should you care about what they say?
I said that? Really? Or did I say that definitions which are self-contradictory should be ignored, since contradictions cannot exist.

Yeah, that's what I said, not your strawman version.

Why do explicit and implicit atheism both use the same word, since they are so different? Simple - both are 'not theism'.... one is just active, and the other passive.

But that's just the thing: lumping things together simply because they are "not theism" is as stupid as lumping cultures together because they are "not American." It's as stupid as defining all hair colors as "red" and "not red." Strawberry blonde isn't red, but it's far closer to red than is blue-black hair, so why on Earth would blue-black hair and strawberry blonde hair be described using the exact same word? They wouldn't, because that would be silly.


That can be an importaqnt distinction - especially for someone who came to their atheism through 'skepticism'... which is why there are TWO possible 'branches' of atheism.
I don't think they're branches of the same belief system at all. I think "explicit atheism" (the belief that there is no God) is a branch from the same philosophical system as theism.

You're pathetic.
This discussion is already emotionally charged, so it's probably best if we don't add personal insults to it. I would really appreciate if we could avoid having this thread locked. :D

This discussion is already emotionally charged, so it's probably best if we don't add personal insults to it. I would really appreciate if we could avoid having this thread locked. :D

Darknovae would be so disappointed. :p

Actually, as BAAWA goes, that was pretty mild. I've learned to tune them out when he does it, in much the same way as I (generally) tune it out when you refer to my faith as 'superstition'. ;)

But that's just the thing: lumping things together simply because they are "not theism" is as stupid as lumping cultures together because they are "not American." It's as stupid as defining all hair colors as "red" and "not red." Strawberry blonde isn't red, but it's far closer to red than is blue-black hair, so why on Earth would blue-black hair and strawberry blonde hair be described using the exact same word? They wouldn't, because that would be silly.

Well I dunno. A lot of things "lumped" under theism are quite different from each other as well, no? Besides, isn't that exactly what the word 'foreign' means?

Darknovae would be so disappointed. :p

Actually, as BAAWA goes, that was pretty mild. I've learned to tune them out when he does it, in much the same way as I (generally) tune it out when you refer to my faith as 'superstition'. ;)

I was so totally your first lesson in tuning things out. :D

I missed the start of this argument about atheism being or not being a doctrine. It is buried in too many posts now to bother finding. So maybe someone can just answer, ...Why is it even preferable to make atheist and agnostic share a definition?

But that's just the thing: lumping things together simply because they are "not theism" is as stupid as lumping cultures together because they are "not American."
Given that, in this case, there are but two options: atheism and theism....

I do hope that you're intelligent enough for me to not have to spell it all out for you.

I missed the start of this argument about atheism being or not being a doctrine. It is buried in too many posts now to bother finding. So maybe someone can just answer, ...Why is it even preferable to make atheist and agnostic share a definition?

Who are you asking? I don't remember that being advocated...maybe I missed it...

This discussion is already emotionally charged, so it's probably best if we don't add personal insults to it.
That's not a personal insult; that's a statement of fact. Anyone who so cravenly has to attempt to avoid contradictions by denying something just posted by that same person would have to be pathetic.

But that's just the thing: lumping things together simply because they are "not theism" is as stupid as lumping cultures together because they are "not American." It's as stupid as defining all hair colors as "red" and "not red." Strawberry blonde isn't red, but it's far closer to red than is blue-black hair, so why on Earth would blue-black hair and strawberry blonde hair be described using the exact same word? They wouldn't, because that would be silly.


But, to a large extent we do that with 'blondes'...

And, culturally, we do it all the time where one race predominates.... you overhear conversation about the guy such-and-such girl likes... you know, the black guy.... and yet the other girl doesn't mention (as she points out her chosen fellow) how 'white' he is....


I don't think they're branches of the same belief system at all. I think "explicit atheism" (the belief that there is no God) is a branch from the same philosophical system as theism.


I also don't think them the 'same belief system'... I think explicit atheism is an active belief in it's own right, while implicit atheism is an absence... it is just as 'atheistic' about EXPLICIT atheism, as it is about the various theisms.

If I had a better term, and I thought people would have ANY idea where on the ballpark I was when I used it... I probably would.

As it is, most of the people I meet are ignorant enough of the terminology (without explicit or implicit thrown in) that they assume I am a Satanist the moment I say I'm an Atheist of ANY degree.

That's not a personal insult; that's a statement of fact. Anyone who so cravenly has to attempt to avoid contradictions by denying something just posted by that same person would have to be pathetic.

Actually, no - it's a matter of opinion... AND a personal insult.

I was so totally your first lesson in tuning things out. :D

Between the people in this thread, you have the people who gave me my NSG baptism of fire. All that's missing is The Nazz and Dempublicents1 for an abortion discussion. :p

Well I dunno. A lot of things "lumped" under theism are quite different from each other as well, no?

True, but generalization is not the problem. A lot of things are lumped under the word "red," too, but that's because "red" is a quality that can be possessed by many things. Many different things can be "theistic," while also having many other qualities. "Theist" or "theistic" themselves are words that specifically describe a particular quality.

Meanwhile, "atheist" is being used to describe several very different things at the same time. That's goddam confusing, and kind of defeats the purpose. I mean, we're supposed to use words to communicate ideas to one another, so it doesn't really help to have a word that communicates a bunch of contradictory ideas at once.

Besides, isn't that exactly what the word 'foreign' means?
Yes, but "foreign" describes a particular quality. It doesn't take a bunch of contradictory ideas and philosophies and lump them together as if they were the same.

"Explicit atheism" and "implicit atheism" are at least as far apart (philosophically speaking) as theism and atheism themselves. I think they're even farther apart than that. So using the same term for both is very misleading, in my opinion.

I missed the start of this argument about atheism being or not being a doctrine. It is buried in too many posts now to bother finding. So maybe someone can just answer, ...Why is it even preferable to make atheist and agnostic share a definition?
Actually, agnosticism is orthogonal to atheism and theism. I'm not entirely certain what you mean by it being "preferable to make atheist and agnostic share a definition", since a lot of people want to make agnosticism a 3rd option (which it isn't). Or, like me, they realize that it's a modifier to atheism or theism in this case. I'm not seeing that people would see it as preferable to share the definition.

I missed the start of this argument about atheism being or not being a doctrine. It is buried in too many posts now to bother finding. So maybe someone can just answer, ...Why is it even preferable to make atheist and agnostic share a definition?
I don't think atheism and agnosticism do share a definition. Maybe you could clarify what you're asking here?

I was a Christian largely by indoctrination up until the age of 13. Unlike the OP, I knew a great deal about the religion and I do not see the inconsistencies of the faith (many people add their own). I do recognize logical contradictions of some of the tenets of Christianity, but I don't particularly see that as a problem considering the subject matter.

I did realize, however, that the dogma of Christianity is horribly flawed, as well as its application within organized religion, and initially rebelled against that into full blown atheism.

As of now, I see any question of religion, supreme beings, the afterlife, and morality in general as being completely unknowable, to the point that probability cannot even be applied to the subject. If I were to describe my beliefs on the point (even though I must accept that they are no more valid than any other), I would say that even were there a God, he is ambivalent. He does not give us the faculties to understand or relate to him in anyway, so it is most likely that he desires no relationship to us.

Because of this I have shifted to agnosticism and have stated on here several times that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive by any definition of either word that allows either to retain some meaning. I see atheism as NO different from Christianity or any other religion. They all seek to assign absolutes or probabilities to concepts that cannot be confined by modalities.

True, but generalization is not the problem. A lot of things are lumped under the word "red," too, but that's because "red" is a quality that can be possessed by many things. Many different things can be "theistic," while also having many other qualities. "Theist" or "theistic" themselves are words that specifically describe a particular quality.

Meanwhile, "atheist" is being used to describe several very different things at the same time. That's goddam confusing, and kind of defeats the purpose. I mean, we're supposed to use words to communicate ideas to one another, so it doesn't really help to have a word that communicates a bunch of contradictory ideas at once.

Never used the word 'cleave', huh? :p Yes, that's a gripe about the English language.

Yes, but "foreign" describes a particular quality. It doesn't take a bunch of contradictory ideas and philosophies and lump them together as if they were the same.

But it does. It's everything not 'native', be it Arabic, Swedish, Korean, Peruvian...

Meanwhile, atheist would be everything not 'theist', be it spiritualist, buddhist, implicit, explicit...

Between the people in this thread, you have the people who gave me my NSG baptism of fire. All that's missing is The Nazz and Dempublicents1 for an abortion discussion. :p

Hehe....fire is fun...

I was a Christian largely by indoctrination up until the age of 13. Unlike the OP, I knew a great deal about the religion and I do not see the inconsistencies of the faith (many people add their own). I do recognize logical contradictions of some of the tenets of Christianity, but I don't particularly see that as a problem considering the subject matter.

I did realize, however, that the dogma of Christianity is horribly flawed, as well as its application within organized religion, and initially rebelled against that into full blown atheism.

As of now, I see any question of religion, supreme beings, the afterlife, and morality in general as being completely unknowable, to the point that probability cannot even be applied to the subject. If I were to describe my beliefs on the point (even though I must accept that they are no more valid than any other), I would say that even were there a God, he is ambivalent. He does not give us the faculties to understand or relate to him in anyway, so it is most likely that he desires no relationship to us.

Because of this I have shifted to agnosticism and have stated on here several times that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive by any definition of either word that allows either to retain some meaning. I see atheism as NO different from Christianity or any other religion. They all seek to assign absolutes or probabilities to concepts that cannot be confined by modalities.


Then you are only discussing Exlicit Atheism. An Implicit Atheist would be what you were if you didn't accept any of those god stories, but also didn't accept the assertion that there must be NO gods.

"Explicit atheism" and "implicit atheism" are at least as far apart (philosophically speaking) as theism and atheism themselves. I think they're even farther apart than that. So using the same term for both is very misleading, in my opinion.
One is a subset of the other. Surely, the set of all even integers is a subset of all integers, yet we'd still call the evens "integers".

Never used the word 'cleave', huh? :p Yes, that's a gripe about the English language.

Yeah, no kidding!!! And what is this bullshit with "inflammable" and "flammable"? Is that a concept you really want people to be confused about?!


But it does. It's everything not 'native', be it Arabic, Swedish, Korean, Peruvian...

Meanwhile, atheist would be everything not 'theist', be it spiritualist, buddhist, implicit, explicit...
When we're talking about philosophies (or any other abstract discussions of this sort), I think it's a lot better to define belief systems by what they ARE, rather than by what they are not.

I mean, would it really be helpful to try to have a discussion of "American capitalism versus not-capitalism," where anarchic economics are lumped together with fascistic communist economies? That kind of language (and the thinking that goes with it) usually is what stalls out the best discussions we have.

I missed the start of this argument about atheism being or not being a doctrine. It is buried in too many posts now to bother finding. So maybe someone can just answer, ...Why is it even preferable to make atheist and agnostic share a definition?

Allowing atheism and agnosticism to overlap at best makes the term "agnostic" meaningless. It could lay to waste the term "atheism" as well.

"Agnostic atheists" like to say that they don't believe there is a God, but they are unsure. This means that every single individual who has ever held a religious belief or faith was an agnostic (as well as true agnostics who don't attempt to believe).

why do great thread on atheism devolve into a stupid quarrel over the meaning of the word?

arent you all tired YET of going over the same ground? do we forget what we posted in the LAST 200 "what does atheism really mean" fights?

atheism isnt a set belief, there are no meetings, no dues, no book we all must read, no committee that can excommunicate us.

quibbling over whether an atheist MUST believe in no gods/no superstitions or if its OK to just not believe in any god he has ever heard about it as counterproductive as it is stupid. the specifics about atheism vary with each atheist.

i dont usually rant about this but it drives me crazy to see an interesting thread be hijacked into a boring one.

Allowing atheism and agnosticism to overlap at best makes the term "agnostic" meaningless. It could lay to waste the term "atheism" as well.

"Agnostic atheists" like to say that they don't believe there is a God, but they are unsure. This means that every single individual who has ever held a religious belief or faith was an agnostic (as well as true agnostics who don't attempt to believe).

Agnostic is not "unsure" or "doubt". That's what makes it meaningless. Agnostic is the belief that the truth (or falsehood) of the claim cannot be proven. There are in fact people who think it can be proven, therefore they are not agnostic. And there's no "true agnostic", theism/atheism is a dichotomy, b and not b.

i dont usually rant about this but it drives me crazy to see an interesting thread be hijacked into a boring one.

With all the time you spend here it's no wonder you're insane then.

why do great thread on atheism devolve into a stupid quarrel over the meaning of the word?

As soon as you explain how it's possible to have a debate on a topic without even agreeing what the topic is, we'll stop.

These links may or may not help......
http://www.evidenceofgod.com/answers/god.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/

May God Bless us ALL

Then you are only discussing Exlicit Atheism. An Implicit Atheist would be what you were if you didn't accept any of those god stories, but also didn't accept the assertion that there must be NO gods.

The definition you use for "implicit atheist" could mean any level of atheist, deist, or agnostic. It is a catch all for anyone who does not have full knowledge of the supernatural realm. Since that is everyone, "implicit atheist" is a useless term and should be discarded for terms that provide some discription.

I was an atheist for a while, I mean I thought I was I guess. I met three distinct types of atheists

1. just couldn't believe the whole God thing, couldn't wrap their mind around why anyone would think that

2. angry at the church

3. angry at God

I was the third. Most of the people I hung out with were the second, as are most of the people around here. It's very rare that I find someone like the first, but they are the type of atheist that annoys me least.

You were never an atheist.

Only the first is an atheist, the second says nothing about god belief and the third is a Maltheist. Maltheists are NOT atheists in any way shape or form. I find it amusingly foolish to annoying when a theist claims I'm "angry at (the) god(s)." How can I be angry at something that doesn't exist?

BTW, I never believed, gods were the same as the easter bunny and santa claus, stories that the other kids in kindergarden thought wre real.

I was an atheist for a while, I mean I thought I was I guess. I met three distinct types of atheists

1. just couldn't believe the whole God thing, couldn't wrap their mind around why anyone would think that

2. angry at the church

3. angry at God

I was the third. Most of the people I hung out with were the second, as are most of the people around here. It's very rare that I find someone like the first, but they are the type of atheist that annoys me least.

You were never an atheist.

Only the first is an atheist, the second says nothing about god belief and the third is a Maltheist. Maltheists are NOT atheists in any way shape or form. I find it amusingly foolish to annoying when a theist claims I'm "angry at (the) god(s)." How can I be angry at something that doesn't exist?

BTW, I never believed, gods were the same as the easter bunny and santa claus, stories that the other kids in kindergarden thought wre real.

The definition you use for "implicit atheist" could mean any level of atheist, deist, or agnostic. It is a catch all for anyone who does not have full knowledge of the supernatural realm. Since that is everyone, "implicit atheist" is a useless term and should be discarded for terms that provide some discription.

Actually, deists and any agnostics that still believe in a god would not be included.

You were never an atheist.

Only the first is an atheist, the second says nothing about god belief and the third is a Maltheist. Maltheists are NOT atheists in any way shape or form. I find it amusingly foolish to annoying when a theist claims I'm "angry at (the) god(s)." How can I be angry at something that doesn't exist?

BTW, I never believed, gods were the same as the easter bunny and santa claus, stories that the other kids in kindergarden thought wre real.

actually at the time I didn't believe there was a God, so I was an atheist, I realize now that my decision not to believe was based on my anger.

These links may or may not help......
The latter. Apologia is designed to make the believers feel better about believing, not about providing evidence.

I don't think atheism and agnosticism do share a definition. Maybe you could clarify what you're asking here?

Dont you start! I asked first!

I've always been an atheist. As a small child religion was never mentioned in my family, although I did go to a christian primary school. I just thought the whole religion thing was daft, and I was a little annoyed by being forced to pray all the time which I thought was boring and pointless. At that age I just couldn't believe that people actually thought this God-stuff was true, it just seemed too silly to me.

Actually, agnosticism is orthogonal to atheism and theism. I'm not entirely certain what you mean by it being "preferable to make atheist and agnostic share a definition", since a lot of people want to make agnosticism a 3rd option (which it isn't). Or, like me, they realize that it's a modifier to atheism or theism in this case. I'm not seeing that people would see it as preferable to share the definition.

Dont you start either dagnabbit! So far we havent even found an agreeable definition to...well...probably the very word "definition" the way it seems to be going! :rolleyes:

Agnostic is not "unsure" or "doubt". That's what makes it meaningless. Agnostic is the belief that the truth (or falsehood) of the claim cannot be proven.

How do you define "unsure" or "doubt?"

If I am unsure or doubt something, I believe that the truth of it has not been proven.

There are in fact people who think it can be proven, therefore they are not agnostic. And there's no "true agnostic", theism/atheism is a dichotomy, b and not b.

I would hold that no one actually believes that God can be proven or disproven.

This dichotomy only takes an exclusive set of individuals that does not include agnostics.

As soon as you explain how it's possible to have a debate on a topic without even agreeing what the topic is, we'll stop.

well there is the problem in a nutshell

the topic was clearly defined in the first post and a very interesting thread was started.

most days i just ignore it when the atheism topic gets hijacked into a useless discussion of the definition of atheism. its not just that its "been done" but that its been done in the exact same way. its the groundhog day of thread hijacks. i simply dont participate.

today im feeling grumpy that people are so obsessed with the desire to defeat baawa knights that they cant let a hijack die. no matter how many poeple respond to the original post, it cant be moved off this hijack. today i wish people would make a new thread and leave the interesting one alone.

Dont you start either dagnabbit! So far we havent even found an agreeable definition to...well...probably the very word "definition" the way it seems to be going! :rolleyes:
What do you mean by "is"?

How do you define "unsure" or "doubt?"

If I am unsure or doubt something, I believe that the truth of it has not been proven.

It doesn't matter if you think it has been, but if you think it can be.



I would hold that no one actually believes that God can be proven or disproven.

You would would you? Geez, get out more.

What do you mean by "is"?

God's. the H is silent.:p

God's. the H is silent.:p
Bugger. You got me.

God's. the H is silent.:p

Define 'H'.

Dont you start! I asked first!
No, seriously, I'm confused about what you were asking.

Agnostic and atheist do not share the same definition. So I guess maybe I'm missing your point.

No, seriously, I'm confused about what you were asking.

Agnostic and atheist do not share the same definition. So I guess maybe I'm missing your point.

I do in good faith and and in good humor and with no thought of pursuing it later for any reason withdraw my question.:)

I do in good faith and and in good humor and with no thought of pursuing it later for any reason withdraw my question.:)

Lol, fair enough.

Define 'H'.

Tat will be somewat of a callenge witout using it in te definition.

I was an atheist for a while, I mean I thought I was I guess. I met three distinct types of atheists

1. just couldn't believe the whole God thing, couldn't wrap their mind around why anyone would think that

2. angry at the church

3. angry at God

I was the third. Most of the people I hung out with were the second, as are most of the people around here. It's very rare that I find someone like the first, but they are the type of atheist that annoys me least.

I'll be no.1 then;)

I've always been an atheist. As a small child religion was never mentioned in my family, although I did go to a christian primary school. I just thought the whole religion thing was daft, and I was a little annoyed by being forced to pray all the time which I thought was boring and pointless. At that age I just couldn't believe that people actually thought this God-stuff was true, it just seemed too silly to me.

My childhood was similar in this regard, except I went to a Catholic Primary/Junior school and parents made me go to Sunday school etc. I dunno why as none of my family are religious. Anyhow, I read/studied the Bible for years and decided I don't believe. I hold a similar belief as teh Muslims about Jesus, that he existed but not as the son of God.

My childhood was similar in this regard, except I went to a Catholic Primary/Junior school and parents made me go to Sunday school etc. I dunno why as none of my family are religious. Anyhow, I read/studied the Bible for years and decided I don't believe. I hold a similar belief as teh Muslims about Jesus, that he existed but not as the son of God.

I guess your parents made you do all that because these catholic schools are usually in nice areas and are much better than most other schools. They also insist on you and your parents going to church, you can't get in otherwise.

You know what? Screw religion. I'm still breathing, and that's good enough for me.

EDIT: I guess that makes me agnostic.

it's not really complicated why i became an athiest. religion just doesn't pass the bs test.

I guess your parents made you do all that because these catholic schools are usually in nice areas and are much better than most other schools. They also insist on you and your parents going to church, you can't get in otherwise.

yeah it was a really good school so that's why I went there, the sunday school bit was before I went there (I think they just wanted time away from me:D ). Never really did too much of the church bit.

yeah it was a really good school so that's why I went there, the sunday school bit was before I went there (I think they just wanted time away from me:D ). Never really did too much of the church bit.

I was actually sent to sunday school every week for several months. My dads girlfriend at the time was a christian and they made me go. I hated it. The other kids there seemed to enjoy themselves but I couldn't get into it. I just found the whole thing silly and I missed going to the swimming baths. :(

I guess your parents made you do all that because these catholic schools are usually in nice areas and are much better than most other schools. They also insist on you and your parents going to church, you can't get in otherwise.
Yeah, my boyfriend attended Catholic private schools simply because they were the best schools in his area that his family could afford. His family isn't Catholic, nor have they ever been, they just knew that the public schools in their area were shite.

Yeah, my boyfriend attended Catholic private schools simply because they were the best schools in his area that his family could afford. His family isn't Catholic, nor have they ever been, they just knew that the public schools in their area were shite.

that's how I ended up in one!:p

Isn't there a huge logical flaw running through this entire debate, namely that the debate assumes that you are either Judeo-Christian, agnostic, or atheist?

I mean, isn't the debate entirely different if God is structured according to a monist or pantheist perspective, or if God is evil or neutral rather than good? Perhaps moral law is developed by man to survive the whims of an evil God, or perhaps we are in the middle of a struggle between cosmic forces? Maybe there are multiple Gods for every aspect of the universe, or perhaps God is structured according to multiple levels, each relating to a particular level of supernatural or natural properties. Perhaps God is the universe?

We're automatically assuming that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and a singular force and arguing about it from there...it seems like we're really just putting up a strawman and arguing against that form of God rather than facing the reality that we can't even define what God is, let alone whether or not it exists.

Isn't there a huge logical flaw running through this entire debate, namely that the debate assumes that you are either Judeo-Christian, agnostic, or atheist?

I mean, isn't the debate entirely different if God is structured according to a monist or pantheist perspective, or if God is evil or neutral rather than good? Perhaps moral law is developed by man to survive the whims of an evil God, or perhaps we are in the middle of a struggle between cosmic forces? Maybe there are multiple Gods for every aspect of the universe, or perhaps God is structured according to multiple levels, each relating to a particular level of supernatural or natural properties. Perhaps God is the universe?

We're automatically assuming that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and a singular force and arguing about it from there...it seems like we're really just putting up a strawman and arguing against that form of God rather than facing the reality that we can't even define what God is, let alone whether or not it exists.

I dunno, I tried to make sure I used the term "a god", indefinite article, uncapitalized. Thus, any god or number of them (besides, yanno, 0)

OP:
So, I'm agnostic. Most here are agnostic or atheist. So, I have some questions. What made you choose the path you did? What do you think of Christians? Jews? Muslims? Everyone else? Do you think religion is falt-out wrong, or that it could be right but not for you (or everyone)?

For me, I realized that I knew little of Christianity, which was at the time my religion. There were so many dicrepancies in it that I chose agnosticism, because though I was no longer Christian I still believed in some higher power. (And NSG had something to do with that). I really have no problems with Christians at all, I think many are quite loving and caring people when they're not in perpetual Bible study, but I do think it's rather odd to worship a mortal man who basically got tortured to death (don't get me wrong, Jesus was an awesome guy). I have no problem with Jews or Muslims at all, I find their beliefs fascinating but don't really believe them. Everyone is cool as long as it's not some weird sci-fi cult like Scientology. I don't really believe in organized religion, because I think everyone should have their own beliefs.

And what about you guys?

Isn't there a huge logical flaw running through this entire debate, namely that the debate assumes that you are either Judeo-Christian, agnostic, or atheist?

I mean, isn't the debate entirely different if God is structured according to a monist or pantheist perspective, or if God is evil or neutral rather than good? Perhaps moral law is developed by man to survive the whims of an evil God, or perhaps we are in the middle of a struggle between cosmic forces? Maybe there are multiple Gods for every aspect of the universe, or perhaps God is structured according to multiple levels, each relating to a particular level of supernatural or natural properties. Perhaps God is the universe?

We're automatically assuming that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and a singular force and arguing about it from there...it seems like we're really just putting up a strawman and arguing against that form of God rather than facing the reality that we can't even define what God is, let alone whether or not it exists.
Well since the OP stated religion as a whole and not a certain form/structure then no. The dabate has run it's course this way as the majority of people here I believe are Christian or Catholic. It's just people's beliefs, I'm sure there are people out there who believe that God exists and IS evil. Who knows. We'll see when the time comes I guess.

Well since the OP stated religion as a whole and not a certain form/structure then no. The dabate has run it's course this way as the majority of people here I believe are Christian or Catholic. It's just people's beliefs, I'm sure there are people out there who believe that God exists and IS evil. Who knows. We'll see when the time comes I guess.

I guess. I think it's just impossible to really confirm one way or another; I personally do believe their is a God but its nature is unknowable to us until after we die. Now, mind you that's stronger than just agnosticism but it just makes sense to me...if it's a working myth, it's a working myth but I really feel there is something higher than us.

.......why is it sooooo important?

I wish I knew.

We're automatically assuming that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and a singular force and arguing about it from there...it seems like we're really just putting up a strawman and arguing against that form of God rather than facing the reality that we can't even define what God is, let alone whether or not it exists.

A conception of God or gods that neither made them out as beings deserving of worship ("worship" not meant in the same way as "respect"; mutual respect is possible, but not mutual worship) nor as omnipotent or omnibenevolent beings would be a conception with which I would have no problem.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of believers in this country, including me when I was among them, subscribe to a conception of God that includes all three of those elements.

It's filling up... slowly :p

Yeah. I mean 'm here.

And, Pancake, your syrup has arrived. :)

Agnostic is not "unsure" or "doubt". That's what makes it meaningless. Agnostic is the belief that the truth (or falsehood) of the claim cannot be proven.

Exactly why making any statement on any sort of belief either way cannot stem from agnostic thinking. If you are not completely ambivalent to the question of religion you are not agnostic.

There are in fact people who think it can be proven, therefore they are not agnostic.

I don't believe you.

And there's no "true agnostic", theism/atheism is a dichotomy, b and not b.

The theism/atheism dichotomy only draws from a exclusive set of individuals. If it were to draw from the whole set, agnosticism becomes a useless term.

I don't believe you.

Augustine, Maimonides, Descartes, and everyone who believes them.

Actually, deists and any agnostics that still believe in a god would not be included.

An Implicit Atheist would be what you were if you didn't accept any of those god stories, but also didn't accept the assertion that there must be NO gods.

In what way would a deist or agnostic that didn't accept any current concept of a supreme being but felt that it is likely one exists (a very large portion of self-labeled "theist agnostics") not fit into that definition?

In what way would a deist or agnostic that didn't accept any current concept of a supreme being but felt that it is likely one exists (a very large portion of self-labeled "theist agnostics") not fit into that definition?

Well, because they believe in a god. That makes them theist, and thusly, not atheist. How is Deist not a current concept of a supreme being?

Exactly why making any statement on any sort of belief either way cannot stem from agnostic thinking. If you are not completely ambivalent to the question of religion you are not agnostic.

Untrue. You don't have to think it can be proven to have a belief.

Augustine, Maimonides, Descartes, and everyone who believes them.

Alright, anyone who clings to glaring logical inconsistencies that have been pointed out over and over again could be considered to not be agnostic.

Alright, anyone who clings to glaring logical inconsistencies that have been pointed out over and over again could be considered to not be agnostic.

An intrestingly large number of people.

Alright, anyone who clings to glaring logical inconsistencies that have been pointed out over and over again could be considered to not be agnostic.

In the other direction, the argument from evil seems a fairly effective proof against the existence of at least a certain kind of God.

In the other direction, the argument from evil seems a fairly effective proof against the existence of at least a certain kind of God.

And of course, there are those who believe that disproves God, correct or not, they'd not be agnostic

And of course, those that think we can, but just haven't done it yet, would also be non-agnostic.

Well, because they believe in a god. That makes them theist, and thusly, not atheist. How is Deist not a current concept of a supreme being?

It is my point that his definition does not eliminate all theists, anyone who states that they do not know the nature of the supreme being but forms the opinion that it is very likely that one exists fits the qualities he described:

1. They don't "accept any of those god stories"

2. They don't "accept the assertion that there must be NO gods"


Albert Einstein, for example:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."


How would you classify this? He establishes that he thinks there must be some superior being, but makes no attempt at deducing its nature?

Untrue. You don't have to think it can be proven to have a belief.

Any agnosticism that doesn't state that any postulation on the existence of a supernatural being is impossible is pointless.

For that reason any statement reflecting the possibility of God existing, the unlikeliness of God existing, or any evidence in God's existence or nonexistence is outside the realms of agnosticism.

Any atheistic or theistic stance, therefore, cannot be arrived at by an agnostic thinker.

It is my point that his definition does not eliminate all theists, anyone who states that they do not know the nature of the supreme being but forms the opinion that it is very likely that one exists fits the qualities he described:

1. They don't "accept any of those god stories"

2. They don't "accept the assertion that there must be NO gods"


Albert Einstein, for example:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."


How would you classify this? He establishes that he thinks there must be some superior being, but makes no attempt at deducing its nature?

Well, he belives in a god. That would make him theist. He doesn't say explictly whether or not this god can be proved to exist or not exist, so I don't know if he's agnostic or not. This isn't the first time I've heard something in the way of a "god of reassoning".

So, I'm agnostic. Most here are agnostic or atheist. So, I have some questions. What made you choose the path you did? What do you think of Christians? Jews? Muslims? Everyone else? Do you think religion is falt-out wrong, or that it could be right but not for you (or everyone)?

There is nothing incompatible with being Christian/Jew/Muslim and agnostic. I am Christian, but I also recognize that it is impossible for any of us to know with certainty whether or not a deity or deities exist. I am, thus, a theistic agnostic or an agnostic theist. Notably, it is also quite possible to be an atheistic agnostic or agnostic atheist.

:eek: Wow, 25 pages! This is a new record! :D

Meh, I wasn't really looking for debate here, but this is NSG so there's debate everywhere ;) Not that I mind, of course.

I believe though, that the Abrahamic god is evil, because of the sex-before-marriage-no-gay-sex-no=buttsex-must-have-the-baby-women-are-inferior-to-men thing that seems to be going on. Jesus exhibited none of that, which is why I like Jesus but disagree with most of his followers. :)

Any agnosticism that doesn't state that any postulation on the existence of a supernatural being is impossible is pointless.

For that reason any statement reflecting the possibility of God existing, the unlikeliness of God existing, or any evidence in God's existence or nonexistence is outside the realms of agnosticism.

Any atheistic or theistic stance, therefore, cannot be arrived at by an agnostic thinker.

Mayhap you want Ignosticism? Agnosticism is hardly as limited as you seem to think it is.

:eek: Wow, 25 pages! This is a new record! :D

Meh, I wasn't really looking for debate here, but this is NSG so there's debate everywhere ;) Not that I mind, of course.

I believe though, that the Abrahamic god is evil, because of the sex-before-marriage-no-gay-sex-no=buttsex-must-have-the-baby-women-are-inferior-to-men thing that seems to be going on. Jesus exhibited none of that, which is why I like Jesus but disagree with most of his followers. :)

Is God defined by what followers think or by God's own existence? And note that Jesus actually claimed to follow the Abrahamic God, so if you like Jesus, you probably adopt his view of the Abrahamic God and what that God wants.

Well, he belives in a god. That would make him theist. He doesn't say explictly whether or not this god can be proved to exist or not exist, so I don't know if he's agnostic or not. This isn't the first time I've heard something in the way of a "god of reassoning".

http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

Any agnosticism that doesn't state that any postulation on the existence of a supernatural being is impossible is pointless.

Why?

For that reason any statement reflecting the possibility of God existing, the unlikeliness of God existing, or any evidence in God's existence or nonexistence is outside the realms of agnosticism.

If there is no possibilty for God's existence in your thinking, you are, by definition, not an agnostic. If there is no possibility for God's nonexistence in your thinking, you are, by definition, not an agnostic. The *possibilty* must be there, even if you believe the truth to be one way or another.

Meanwhile, evidence for or against God's existence need not be "outside the realms of agnosticism," as long as the agnostic acknowledges that such evidences do not provide proof either way.

Any atheistic or theistic stance, therefore, cannot be arrived at by an agnostic thinker.

Why? Why must someone who believes they cannot *know* something with certainty refrain from thinking about it at all, and possibly forming a belief one way or another?

Mayhap you want Ignosticism? Agnosticism is hardly as limited as you seem to think it is.

Ignosticism is the only valid form of agnosticism, so there is no need for the term in the first place.

Why?

Because no one is completely unskeptical of knowledge. Anyone within a logical argument can be forced to say that there is a possibility that they don't "know" what they think they know.

EDIT: Of course Decartes uses circular logic (that I am certain he knew about but was unwilling to remove) to avoid this problem.

If you can get the most devout believer to say that he doubts any of his perception, that he may be in the midst of an intricate dream, then he too counts as an agnostic.

If we allow varying degrees into this epistemological stance, then it includes everyone and becomes meaningless.

If there is no possibilty for God's existence in your thinking, you are, by definition, not an agnostic. If there is no possibility for God's nonexistence in your thinking, you are, by definition, not an agnostic. The *possibilty* must be there, even if you believe the truth to be one way or another.

I specifically used the word "unlikely" to express that even statements of probability are outside the realm of agnosticism.

I guess I would say that the term "possible" is meaningless to an agnostic, as all is possible, while "probable" or "unlikely" is not allowed to an agnostic.

Meanwhile, evidence for or against God's existence need not be "outside the realms of agnosticism," as long as the agnostic acknowledges that such evidences do not provide proof either way.

Once again, if we allow varying degrees of skepticism of one's perceptions into agnosticism, it becomes meaningless.

Why? Why must someone who believes they cannot *know* something with certainty refrain from thinking about it at all, and possibly forming a belief one way or another?

There is no reason why an agnostic must not ponder a supreme being, but he must accept that his/her thoughts are completely groundless.

Albert Einstein, for example:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."


How would you classify this? He establishes that he thinks there must be some superior being, but makes no attempt at deducing its nature?
Spinozean pantheist. Just as he himself said he was.

I am neither atheist or agnostic, but my reply does not espouse any other beliefs.
Has anyone here read Life of Pi? It's interesting, especially in the way it treats all beliefs (including atheism) as faith. The main character even refers to atheists as "brothers in faith". I just mentioned it here because I think several of the themes of this thread can also be found in the book.
Plus, it has tigers. What more could one want?

I was an atheist for a while, I mean I thought I was I guess. I met three distinct types of atheists

1. just couldn't believe the whole God thing, couldn't wrap their mind around why anyone would think that

2. angry at the church

3. angry at God

I was the third. Most of the people I hung out with were the second, as are most of the people around here. It's very rare that I find someone like the first, but they are the type of atheist that annoys me least.
The first is the only one that makes any sense. I fail to see why anyone would believe in a god...

Though Jocaiba's likely to tell me I don't know what "believe" means.

I am neither atheist or agnostic, but my reply does not espouse any other beliefs.

Actually it does. If you're not atheist, you're theist. YOu believe in a god or gods of some sort.

Ignosticism is the only valid form of agnosticism, so there is no need for the term in the first place.
I might agree with that. Ignosticism is where any agnostic who thinks about his position long enough is likely to find himself.

Actually it does. If you're not atheist, you're theist. YOu believe in a god or gods of some sort.

He means that his reply comes from a neutral standpoint, not that he himself is neutral.

He means that his reply comes from a neutral standpoint, not that he himself is neutral.

Ah, okay. I misunderstood then.

So, I'm agnostic. Most here are agnostic or atheist. So, I have some questions. What made you choose the path you did? What do you think of Christians? Jews? Muslims? Everyone else? Do you think religion is falt-out wrong, or that it could be right but not for you (or everyone)?

For me, I realized that I knew little of Christianity, which was at the time my religion. There were so many dicrepancies in it that I chose agnosticism, because though I was no longer Christian I still believed in some higher power. (And NSG had something to do with that). I really have no problems with Christians at all, I think many are quite loving and caring people when they're not in perpetual Bible study, but I do think it's rather odd to worship a mortal man who basically got tortured to death (don't get me wrong, Jesus was an awesome guy). I have no problem with Jews or Muslims at all, I find their beliefs fascinating but don't really believe them. Everyone is cool as long as it's not some weird sci-fi cult like Scientology. I don't really believe in organized religion, because I think everyone should have their own beliefs.

And what about you guys?

I became agnostic because a priest at my catholic high school had the audacity to announce to a church full of multi-denominational girls that, if they were not catholic, they were going to hell. I got tired of the judgemental hypocrasy so seemingly pervasive in catholicism that my faith seriously declined. After 12 years of being brainwashed to believe in the ideas and concepts of catholicism though, it is hard to remove myself completely from it.

I have studied many other religions out of curiousity, but ultimately I've decided to take a certain view on faith.

Take a deck of cards, shuffle them or not, pick any card, don't look at it, and lay it face down on the table. Tell yourself that this card is the King of Hearts, or Queen of Diamonds, or whatever you chose. Now here's the trick. Don't look at the card. Ever. It could be the card you called it by or it could be one of 51 other cards, but you will never know. You just have to have faith that it is. Does that make it the card you said it was? Would it be enough for you to simply assume that it is without ever having to look at it? Would it matter if 5 million other people agreed with you?

That's why I am agnostic. It might be that card or it might not. I'm not one to believe in things I have never seen conclusive evidence for, but I won't dismiss it as not being possible.

Firstly, I'm athiestic. For me there is no need for a god to exist. Why should there? If you can explain that in terms that make sense to what I perceive as a a nihilistic universe, I might be prepared to belive you. But no. There is no god. I see religion as outdated. I believe in fairness for all, peace to my neighbour (no that I know them anyway) and that certain behaviour is against law. Why do I need religion to tell me how to behave? I don't. I also think that no one needs to be told. Why is religion a higher ethical standard than an athiestic view? Its not. and you don't need religion to be told this.

But that's assuming "God" is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and monotheistic. For all we know, God might have just created the universe on a whim and let things run through there, or there might be multiple Gods each tending to a specific aspect of the natural world. God might be evil, totally arbitrary, or even simply a manifestation of some supreme essence or consciousness

I think the number one problem is that people automatically associate God, benevolence and morality. For all we know, morality may be a human concept designed to thwart the influence of an evil God on us, or even a tool used by a good God to stop the evil one from destroying his creation. There have been plenty of Gods throughout history whose morality was dubious at best, and many whose worship was outright deleterious to its followers.


No its assuming the total opposite. That the existence of any 'higher power' is totally irrelevant to the existence of religion. There is no god and the reasons are just too many to mention (the soul, science, common sense etc) but the religious institutions that use the idea to attempt to create a 'heaven on earth' are doing the right thing. Just got to stop all the silliness that goes with it now

When we're talking about philosophies (or any other abstract discussions of this sort), I think it's a lot better to define belief systems by what they ARE, rather than by what they are not.

I agree with you.

The problem is, it leaves me no pigeon-hole.

It would be simple if I were the other kind of Atheist, or if I accepted the premise of one of those god-things... but I simply don't.

So - how do I define my 'system' by what it 'is'?

No its assuming the total opposite. That the existence of any 'higher power' is totally irrelevant to the existence of religion. There is no god and the reasons are just too many to mention (the soul, science, common sense etc) but the religious institutions that use the idea to attempt to create a 'heaven on earth' are doing the right thing. Just got to stop all the silliness that goes with it now

We will not know for certain if there is or isn't a God until we die...it's as simple as that. We can believe now, and some people have had religious revelations in their lives, but ultimately those experiences aren't certain because the human mind is capable of creating similar experiences to religious revelation without the intervention of a deity. I personally feel that there is too much circumstantial evidence for something higher than us, be it a God, a cosmic force, a soul or some other form of higher consciousness but ultimately that's only my belief.

I agree 100% that it's a good idea to live according to moral principles and right action (tempered, of course, by rationality) because either way you're going to benefit. If there is a God, you'll probably be rewarded (of course, if God is evil that's another story) and if there isn't, you've made the world a better place and enriched your life and that of others.

The definition you use for "implicit atheist" could mean any level of atheist, deist, or agnostic. It is a catch all for anyone who does not have full knowledge of the supernatural realm. Since that is everyone, "implicit atheist" is a useless term and should be discarded for terms that provide some discription.

Not at all - many people 'know' there is a god, or that there isn't. Many people are unsure, but believe there is.

The Implicit Atheist is pretty specific... it is basically those who are unsure (or just don't know), and do not accept/believe any gods... nor the absolute absence.

ANd, of course, 'agnostic' is irrelevent to the subject, since an agnostic can be theistic or atheistic... it having no bearing on the question of belief.

In what way would a deist or agnostic that didn't accept any current concept of a supreme being but felt that it is likely one exists (a very large portion of self-labeled "theist agnostics") not fit into that definition?

Because that deist or agnostic (again, you seem to imply this is an 'extra' option..?) does believe that there is some kind of 'god'.

We will not know for certain if there is or isn't a God until we die...it's as simple as that.

Why automatically assume we will know, once we die?

Why automatically assume we will know, once we die?

Because it's really the only way to tell if things like the soul or the conscious mind exist after death. If they don't, we sink in to oblivion and the problem is meaningless and if there is something afterwards, we're probably going to find it out. Of course, there's the chance that we will be just reincarnated and it will be impossible to know as well.

Right now, we can't really tell if things like the conscious mind or the soul exist or are explainable as part of the workings of the brain, so it's impossible to answer without removing the physical body through death.

I was always an atheist - and I had never any doubts about it.

If there was a powerful, almighty god - why I don't belive in him? ;)

Religin was maybe important in ancient times to define social behaviour, and to give people answers to questions which they simply couldn't answer.
(Like: How was the universe created? etc.)

But today, we don't need religion to define "good" or "bad" - and the answers written in these religious books were proofed to be total nonsense. (Or does anybody still belive that god created it in six days?) We may not be able to answer all questions yet - but isn't the knowledge, that we don't know everything, a kind of enlihgtning as well?

But I have no problem with religious people, as long they don't try to convert me. Well, most of them don't really belive in these things written in their holy books. They tend to create their own religion, which is much more tolerant.

If there was a powerful, almighty god - why I don't belive in him? ;)

Well, I would say it's because you have free will, and true freedom means you can believe whatever you want without retaliation or coercion from God.


A little speculation:

Perhaps God created human (or any sentient being's) consciousness with the intent of condemning us to total freedom and then forced us to create meaning for ourselves. Perhaps, upon death, we are judged according to our actions in life and are rewarded or punished accordingly, and then reborn to further develop ourselves until we are capable of rejoining God in a kind of perpetual bliss.

Perhaps this life is really similar to the "purgatory" described by Catholics...it's a step meant to gradually refine us through struggle and experience until we can become something more, eventually rising to the point of reunion with God. Perhaps creation is continually happening, leading to a perpetual cycle of life and death, of good and evil...perhaps even God himself is a being, vastly more powerful and enlightened than us, but still striving to improve himself to an even higher level of consciousness.

Perhaps God created human (or any sentient being's) consciousness with the intent of condemning us to total freedom and then forced us to create meaning for ourselves. Perhaps, upon death, we are judged according to our actions in life and are rewarded or punished accordingly, and then reborn to further develop ourselves until we are capable of rejoining God in a kind of perpetual bliss.

Why must we develop ourselves so? Couldn't God have just created us perfect in the first place?

And I think I'd be better at "develop myself" if I existed in a world that was better than ours.

perhaps even God himself is a being, vastly more powerful and enlightened than us, but still striving to improve himself to an even higher level of consciousness.

Now [i]that makes more sense - God's omnipotence has always been the crucial flaw in most systems.

But why should I worship Him, if He is just a being more powerful and enlightened then me?

Agnostics in da haaaaaus!!!! WUT!!! brraaap brrraap!!!! :D

These are some arguements I posted earlier and I would love to hear some counter-arguements.

- Hell is sort've sadistic. What purpose does eternal damnation serve? It's not a punishment, it's simply a consequence. You aren't sent to Hell with the intention of learning a lesson, because even if you do it's too late to be forgiven. And forgiven for what? Not believing in God? This is not an idea I support.

- Evil/Hell is part of God's divine plan, so is it 'really' bad?
Without the ability to choose evil there would be no freewill, and without freewill Christianity just doesn't work at all.

- Judgement. How is an immortal being supposed to judge mortal creatures? Can he even truly understand what it is to be mortal? Could even Jesus? Does God have the wide spectrum of emotions like we do? It's said our God is a jealous God, how absurd is that? How can God be jealous of something, shouldn't he be above such a petty emotion? It's laughable.

I don't know if there is an afterlife. I don't know if there is a God, but I don't believe the teachings of the Bible. If anything God is, literally, the divine plan itself and is immortal in the same sense that gravity is immortal. It's just there, without emotion.

I've even gone as far to call into a local radiostation in Birmingham to put some of these arguements on the air. I don't like the fear-driven religion and I want people to question their religion.

Overall though, I don't think religion is a bad thing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also, I don't believe in freewill. I believe in will, but not freewill. There's a difference. There are so many things that define your personality that are outside of your control. The decisions you make are based on a complex thought-process that takes the circumstances of the current situation and everything that's happened in your life before that situation and comes to a pre-determined choice. Also, bio-chemical makeup and DNA may affect decision-making.

Why must we develop ourselves so? Couldn't God have just created us perfect in the first place?

And I think I'd be better at "develop myself" if I existed in a world that was better than ours.

Perhaps God didn't create us perfect because he is not perfect; God was a consciousness that was able to achieve the power to create the physical world, but is still not perfect. He created this as a way to develop himself as well as to allow other beings to rise to his level for a purpose even higher than himself.

That makes sense in a lot of ways; humans are the only beings that are capable of creating, of shaping their universe according to their own desires be it through art, music, technology, or anything else. Perhaps our ability to create is what was meant by the "image of God"; by creating meaning for ourselves, we develop ourselves spiritually and we can eventually become like God, an imperfect being who is still learning, but capable of creating outside of the physical world rather than just within it.



Now [i]that makes more sense - God's omnipotence has always been the crucial flaw in most systems.

But why should I worship Him, if He is just a being more powerful and enlightened then me?

Maybe we don't worship, but rather respect God. (I think you may have touched on this earlier). I've gradually developed the view that God is a teacher; you respect your teacher and work hard to learn what they teach, but you don't worship them. Also, teachers are not perfect and have the same challenges to face as their students, even though they have more experience and knowledge.

Regarding morality, it also makes sense; students are supposed follow the rules of their school, and are punished when they break them. However, that punishment is neither immoral nor disproportionate to the violation. The scale and nature of these violations is the real question regarding morality; I think many of the moral rules are truly moral and are needed for people to learn, but others are more minor or even human inventions meant for no other reason than to enforce a particular viewpoint on others. After all, politicians don't get elected by promoting altruism, respect and caring for others...the people who do that seem to be punished and hated by those in power.

In regard to Hell:
I think "Hell" is not eternal, but rather a temporary punishment for transgressions. Even if a student is expelled for a serious misdeed, they can still find a way to resume learning and recover their reputation, even if it is very difficult and in a totally different environment. The purpose of Hell isn't suffering, but rather learning; I don't think it's a place of eternal torment, because no one learns anything from that other than hatred of their tormentor. And that means you learn nothing, which negates and contradicts the purpose of existence.

I am what you would call a militant atheist, heres why. I believe religious people should be mocked, why? Because religion has too much special protection in our society. I believe in a jihad for my lack of faith if it came to that, I would rather die than live in say a christian theocracy. Further jews should be in camps! not just jews, christians, hindus, etc. I'm not saying kill them, I'm saying allow them to see why religion is b.s.

I am what you would call a militant atheist, heres why. I believe religious people should be mocked, why? Because religion has too much special protection in our society. I believe in a jihad for my lack of faith if it came to that, I would rather die than live in say a christian theocracy. Further jews should be in camps! not just jews, christians, hindus, etc. I'm not saying kill them, I'm saying allow them to see why religion is b.s.

If you've ever read accounts of the Holocaust, you'd learn that imprisonment, suffering and repression do far more to enhance religious beliefs than to destroy them. Some of the most spiritual experiences' in peoples' lives come during times of suffering or hardship.

After all, if imprisonment destroyed faith there would be no martyrs.

If you've ever read accounts of the Holocaust, you'd learn that imprisonment, suffering and repression do far more to enhance religious beliefs than to destroy them. Some of the most spiritual experiences' in peoples' lives come during times of suffering or hardship.

After all, if imprisonment destroyed faith there would be no martyrs.

Russia and some of its former blocs are some of the most unreligious nations on the planet largely because of the way religion was handled under communism. All it takes is time for the plan to work.

Russia and some of its former blocs are some of the most unreligious nations on the planet largely because of the way religion was handled under communism. All it takes is time for the plan to work.

In the end, though, they didn't stamp it out. Over 1/3 of the population remained devoted to their religion, despite 74 years of purges, propagandizing, and the destruction of religious facilities. Only half of the population professed atheism, which leaves another half either agnostic, ignostic or theist.

And, following the collapse of the USSR faith began to reemerge and recover. Coercion can only keep something repressed for so long, and after it ends the repressed will come back.

In the end, though, they didn't stamp it out. Over 1/3 of the population remained devoted to their religion, despite 74 years of purges, propagandizing, and the destruction of religious facilities. Only half of the population professed atheism, which leaves another half either agnostic, ignostic or theist.

And, following the collapse of the USSR faith began to reemerge and recover. Coercion can only keep something repressed for so long, and after it ends the repressed will come back.

I will take 1/3 of the population religious over 70-80% any day. The policies worked and if they were given more time you would be looking at 10-15% religious rate. Eventually religion will die out, I just want to see it happen in my lifetime.

Perhaps God didn't create us perfect because he is not perfect; God was a consciousness that was able to achieve the power to create the physical world, but is still not perfect. He created this as a way to develop himself as well as to allow other beings to rise to his level for a purpose even higher than himself.

And this "purpose" is... perfection?

How do we develop towards it?

(It does seem to me that individual perfection would require, ultimately, universal perfection - the perfect person lives within a perfect community. Perhaps then our task is, in part, to see and treat other beings as beings worthy of this perfection - not so much as a means to attaining our own perfection, but because their perfection and ours are, in some sense, the same thing.)

That makes sense in a lot of ways; humans are the only beings that are capable of creating, of shaping their universe according to their own desires be it through art, music, technology, or anything else. Perhaps our ability to create is what was meant by the "image of God"; by creating meaning for ourselves, we develop ourselves spiritually and we can eventually become like God, an imperfect being who is still learning, but capable of creating outside of the physical world rather than just within it.

I am not so convinced that this is unique to humans. We have never, after all, asked a dolphin about metaphysics.

That said, I don't think the real achievement is to escape the physical; the real achievement is to unite the physical and the spiritual, to cease the alienation of the two.

Maybe we don't worship, but rather respect God. (I think you may have touched on this earlier). I've gradually developed the view that God is a teacher; you respect your teacher and work hard to learn what they teach, but you don't worship them. Also, teachers are not perfect and have the same challenges to face as their students, even though they have more experience and knowledge.

The perfect teacher has no power over others. She is respected because she is wise and knowledgeable, not because she can grade harshly or administer punishment. Her students listen to her of their own free will, and gain from her because they choose to.

A God like that - that's one I could respect.

Edit: But the key, and what I was getting at in that last post, is that this respect is mutual. Not only does must the relationship lack the material capability for domination, it must also lack the desire - the teacher must see the students as free beings who deserve to be free, and must be unwilling to use any power she may have against them. (The same, of course, must be true of the students - but most of the time we do not see the power dynamic reversed in this situation.)

Regarding morality, it also makes sense; students are supposed follow the rules of their school, and are punished when they break them. However, that punishment is neither immoral nor disproportionate to the violation. The scale and nature of these violations is the real question regarding morality; I think many of the moral rules are truly moral and are needed for people to learn, but others are more minor or even human inventions meant for no other reason than to enforce a particular viewpoint on others.

The real morality is not a "rule" like a rule in a school; it is not something imposed upon us by an external force. It comes from ourselves, from the self-determination of our own will, and defies all artificial "rules."

(Hah, I didn't think I was such a Kantian.)

After all, politicians don't get elected by promoting altruism, respect and caring for others...the people who do that seem to be punished and hated by those in power.

The true sign of the good person is that she does not seek to rule over others, but merely to aid them - that she respects their autonomy and welfare as her own. She seeks not slaves, but fellows. That is why they so rarely find their way into positions of power.

The greatest sin of society is the entitlement of that kind of privilege - the privilege to rule.

In regard to Hell:
I think "Hell" is not eternal, but rather a temporary punishment for transgressions. Even if a student is expelled for a serious misdeed, they can still find a way to resume learning and recover their reputation, even if it is very difficult and in a totally different environment. The purpose of Hell isn't suffering, but rather learning; I don't think it's a place of eternal torment, because no one learns anything from that other than hatred of their tormentor. And that means you learn nothing, which negates and contradicts the purpose of existence.

Perhaps it is a place of "torment" - but torment of a specific kind, torment from the realization of moral equivalence. One's crimes against others are reflected back on oneself, not as "punishment" (and not in an excessive manner) but so that the crucial lesson of recipricocity is understood.

If you've ever read accounts of the Holocaust, you'd learn that imprisonment, suffering and repression do far more to enhance religious beliefs than to destroy them. Some of the most spiritual experiences' in peoples' lives come during times of suffering or hardship.

Have you read Night?

Have you read Night?

Some people, like the author of that novel, turned away from religion when faced with situations in which they felt that God could not do such horrible things to the faithful. Other people in the same novel, however, huddled more closely around religion as a form of protection against the terror inside the camps. It varies from person to person, but such circumstances tend to push people towards religion, not away from it.

In my own opinion i am a christian....and yes there are some things in the bible and other gospels that contradict with each other...and i have no problem what anyone elses religion is, i chose my path because i feel god and jesus and thats that nothing more and nothing else, i believe one reason a bunch of people tourn from the christian life is because of these "crzy christians" thinkin their better than everyone and tryin to scare everyone into it....well ill tell ya now there just stupid and full of it, and it isnt a question od what you believe or who you believe in its the question of a nations unity through the power of there selfs, interests, and beliefs. We come togather through unity, and to get to unity we have to make a wide spread change in the religous antimosities, if we dont smooth out the edges there will always be terroism and war....if we can unite under one then the world can make it and extra year stopping atleast 1 person from suicide bombing for their supposed religion, no matter what religion you are we have to come togather and look to a higher cause, and put are own choices behind the choices of others;) :cool:

Soheran, I have to go but I'd really like to respond to this later. Keep the thread bumped if necessary.

Soheran, I have to go but I'd really like to respond to this later. Keep the thread bumped if necessary.

Okay. I need to take a break from NS, too - my friend will kill me if I don't finish the book he lent me soon.

I'll keep an eye on this thread, though.

Quick question: do good dead Christians retain their free will in heaven?

I'm Catholic, but I find the brain research trying to determine why people believe in certain religions and how the brain and religion are connected fascinating. We watched a video in psychology about how a man believed that he was a god as a result of epileptic seizures in his temporal lobes.

However, there's evidence to contradict the idea that there is one specific place in the brain activated by religious beliefs (or where the brain activates religious beliefs, whichever it is).

I hope this is sufficiently relevant. It seems relevant to me, but I don't know.

Here's (http://brainwaves.corante.com/archives/2006/09/12/god_net_not_god_spot_says_latest_neurotheological_experiment.php) an article about research into connections between brain activity and religion.

Here's (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060830075718.htm) an article about a study on the brain activity in nuns that contradicts the idea that there is one specific place in the brain activated by religious experiences.

Not at all - many people 'know' there is a god, or that there isn't. Many people are unsure, but believe there is.

The Implicit Atheist is pretty specific... it is basically those who are unsure (or just don't know), and do not accept/believe any gods... nor the absolute absence.

It was a mistake for me to argue the meaning of atheist, I committed the same mistake I am claiming others are making.

ANd, of course, 'agnostic' is irrelevent to the subject, since an agnostic can be theistic or atheistic... it having no bearing on the question of belief.

This is where my true disagreement with many on this thread lies, I addressed this issue in my reply to Dempublicents who hasn't responded yet.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11836926&postcount=379

I think religion is flawed, but each to his own. I am agnostic/Buddhist, and if there is a higher power, I don't like him.

Bump for Vetalia.

And this "purpose" is... perfection?

How do we develop towards it?

That's a good question; I can't tell you for sure, but I believe right action and respect for others is a big part of it. We can already logically observe that societies that emphasize altruism, learning and respect for others are better off by all measures than those that emphasize selfish pursuits of wealth or power.

(It does seem to me that individual perfection would require, ultimately, universal perfection - the perfect person lives within a perfect community. Perhaps then our task is, in part, to see and treat other beings as beings worthy of this perfection - not so much as a means to attaining our own perfection, but because their perfection and ours are, in some sense, the same thing.)

That's why altruism is so important. If we work not just for the betterment of ourselves but that of others, and dedicate ourselves to the task of bettering society, we can move closer to that goal. It's not easy to place others before ourselves or even at the same level of consideration, but it makes sense that perfection shouldn't be easy to attain.

I do believe that cooperation works as well or better than competition.

I am not so convinced that this is unique to humans. We have never, after all, asked a dolphin about metaphysics.

As science pushes the frontiers of knowledge further back, we might find that there are more things that share intellect and reason with us than we thought. For now, we only know humans but we can't be sure what will be discovered in the future.

That said, I don't think the real achievement is to escape the physical; the real achievement is to unite the physical and the spiritual, to cease the alienation of the two.

I think that's a big part of it as well; after all, if God is the "First Cause" behind the physical world, than any attempt to bring ourselves back to God would require the unification of all of God's creation both physical and spiritual.

The perfect teacher has no power over others. She is respected because she is wise and knowledgeable, not because she can grade harshly or administer punishment. Her students listen to her of their own free will, and gain from her because they choose to.

That's true. Of course, even the most respected teacher still has students who don't learn readily or cause trouble, especially if they are young or have just begun their studies; it takes time to mature and sometimes we make mistakes, but a true disciplinarian punishes fairly and with mercy.

A God like that - that's one I could respect.

Edit: But the key, and what I was getting at in that last post, is that this respect is mutual. Not only does must the relationship lack the material capability for domination, it must also lack the desire - the teacher must see the students as free beings who deserve to be free, and must be unwilling to use any power she may have against them. (The same, of course, must be true of the students - but most of the time we do not see the power dynamic reversed in this situation.)

I think the best description might be a professor who actively encourages their students to think and expand their knowledge. The students' findings might not always be correct due to the earlier stage of their learning, but the professor will use their corrections and teachings to further the pursuit of independent knowledge rather than mold it according to their own desires.

It's a mutual respect, albeit one where the professor does have more knowledge and experience than her students.

The real morality is not a "rule" like a rule in a school; it is not something imposed upon us by an external force. It comes from ourselves, from the self-determination of our own will, and defies all artificial "rules."

(Hah, I didn't think I was such a Kantian.)

I would have to say that description is better than mine; I used the "rule" concept to try and keep the analogy together, but this is a better description of what morality should be like.

The true sign of the good person is that she does not seek to rule over others, but merely to aid them - that she respects their autonomy and welfare as her own. She seeks not slaves, but fellows. That is why they so rarely find their way into positions of power.

I think that's why it should be our goal to change society so that those kinds of people emerge; the challenge, of course, is to teach people that the things that truly matter are not wealth, status, and power but rather the advancement of society as a whole and concern for the welfare of the entire community.

The greatest sin of society is the entitlement of that kind of privilege - the privilege to rule.

It seems that the root of evil is the will to rule and to dominate over others; things in themselves don't cause evil but when people feel the desire to use their assets for power over others rather than helping others it rapidly degenerates in to evil.

Perhaps it is a place of "torment" - but torment of a specific kind, torment from the realization of moral equivalence. One's crimes against others are reflected back on oneself, not as "punishment" (and not in an excessive manner) but so that the crucial lesson of recipricocity is understood.

Perhaps that's the reasoning behind the Golden Rule; we should treat others like we would want to be treated because at some point we will have to deal with the pain and hurt we cause others.

Interestingly, the "life review" so many people seem to have in near-death experiences has striking similarity to the concept of realizing reciprocity and might be important to consider.

Bump for Soheran.

That's a good question; I can't tell you for sure, but I believe right action and respect for others is a big part of it. We can already logically observe that societies that emphasize altruism, learning and respect for others are better off by all measures than those that emphasize selfish pursuits of wealth or power.

A better interpretation of divine reward and punishment then many of the alternatives, I think.

If you (collectively) choose evil, you (collectively) will receive death and suffering.

That's why altruism is so important. If we work not just for the betterment of ourselves but that of others, and dedicate ourselves to the task of bettering society, we can move closer to that goal. It's not easy to place others before ourselves or even at the same level of consideration, but it makes sense that perfection shouldn't be easy to attain.

It is not a matter of placing others before ourselves. It is a matter of seeing others as "like us" in the moral sense - of feeling, and acting on, a sense of revulsion when we see others being degraded and being forced to suffer in ways that we ourselves would reject.

Genuine altruism is connected not to mental servility - that is, not to exclusively seeing good in others - but to self-love, healthy self-love that reacts so forcefully to oppression that it cannot tolerate it when done to anyone.

I do believe that cooperation works as well or better than competition.

Free and equal cooperation and free and equal competition are both good; they are both productive and both reflective of genuine mutual respect. (Think of a team game played between friends.)

They become problematic when power replaces respect in the equation - when I can make someone cooperate with me against her will, and thus exploit her as a mere means to my ends, or when the winner of the competition feels entitled to ruthlessly smash her competitors.

As science pushes the frontiers of knowledge further back, we might find that there are more things that share intellect and reason with us than we thought. For now, we only know humans but we can't be sure what will be discovered in the future.

And that - and the fact that we should simply refuse to let other beings suffer unnecessarily, whatever their natures - is why we need to begin re-evaluating our treatment of non-human animals.

I think that's a big part of it as well; after all, if God is the "First Cause" behind the physical world, than any attempt to bring ourselves back to God would require the unification of all of God's creation both physical and spiritual.

The thing is, though, that the spiritual (term used loosely) is right in front of us - we need not seek to "enlighten" ourselves out of the physical to reach it.

The ancient religions seem to have understood this better than the modern ones - that we should not seek to abstain from physical pleasures, and certainly not seek to torture ourselves on the material world for the sake of some afterlife, but that we should live a joyful, pleasurable life that nonetheless recognizes the value and dignity in ourselves and in others and the beauty of all that is.

Laziness, lust, and so on - none of those are wrong. What is wrong is to use others so that we can achieve them, or to pursue them to the point that we are not recognizing our own dignity as a being that has a more profound existence than mere maximization of pleasure.

That's true. Of course, even the most respected teacher still has students who don't learn readily or cause trouble, especially if they are young or have just begun their studies; it takes time to mature and sometimes we make mistakes, but a true disciplinarian punishes fairly and with mercy.

All students want to learn. The task of the teacher is to let them - and her punishments should be restricted to preventing active obstructions.

One of my biggest problems with our society is our fixation on making students learn - not recognizing that by doing so, we are only twisting and destroying their own natural curiosity (and treating them not as beings with dignity, ends-in-themselves, but as beings we can use for our purposes, be it economic growth or anything else.)

I think the best description might be a professor who actively encourages their students to think and expand their knowledge. The students' findings might not always be correct due to the earlier stage of their learning, but the professor will use their corrections and teachings to further the pursuit of independent knowledge rather than mold it according to their own desires.

Yes. You merely water the plant; you do not seek to control the direction of its growth.

It's a mutual respect, albeit one where the professor does have more knowledge and experience than her students.

And if the students respect her, they will recognize this. (Though that does mean that they need listen to her; the relationship must be free.)

I would have to say that description is better than mine; I used the "rule" concept to try and keep the analogy together, but this is a better description of what morality should be like.

The free society does not coerce morality, because it need not; it rests on the assumption that freedom and morality naturally coexist.

(I do actually think this is true. The most natural, uncoerced relationships between people - parent and child, friend and friend - also seem, for the most part, to be the ones most characterized by love and respect.)

I think that's why it should be our goal to change society so that those kinds of people emerge; the challenge, of course, is to teach people that the things that truly matter are not wealth, status, and power but rather the advancement of society as a whole and concern for the welfare of the entire community.

Not so much to "teach" them - this they will recognize on their own, if they are neither servant nor master.

Give them the right and the capability to live for themselves, to enjoy a happy, free, and dignified existence, and refuse to let them rule, and they will naturally see others as their fellows, and thus as beings with dignity.

It seems that the root of evil is the will to rule and to dominate over others; things in themselves don't cause evil but when people feel the desire to use their assets for power over others rather than helping others it rapidly degenerates in to evil.

It seems to me that the capacity for domination and the desire to exercise domination are closely related. If I live in a society where ruling over others is possible, then I have made the first step towards seeing it as acceptable - I have acknowledged its potential existence. If ever I do exercise that domination, even by accident, even by consent, I may grow dependent on it - and the moment I am dependent on it, I now have a motive to exercise it that my natural instincts may not overcome.

Thus, it quickly becomes the case that a society in which domination is possible becomes a society characterized by domination, and a society characterized by domination will always produce people addicted to domination, who can never develop a proper moral character because they are dependent on not possessing it.

So, in a way, "things in themselves" can cause evil - and, in a nutshell, that is why I am an anarchist. (Though that is a discussion for another thread.)

Perhaps that's the reasoning behind the Golden Rule; we should treat others like we would want to be treated because at some point we will have to deal with the pain and hurt we cause others.

Not exactly - we treat others like we would want to be treated because we recognize that treating them otherwise is equivalent to them treating us otherwise. (That is to say, our decent treatment of others is not a mere means to avoiding later punishment; it is an end in itself, because to not do so is, to the perfect moral being, punishment in and of itself.)

The "punishment" I referenced is merely an affirmation of this; the evil person feels the wrongness of the acts she committed, and can thus overcome her behavior.

Interestingly, the "life review" so many people seem to have in near-death experiences has striking similarity to the concept of realizing reciprocity and might be important to consider.

Please clarify.

actually at the time I didn't believe there was a God, so I was an atheist, I realize now that my decision not to believe was based on my anger.

Considering your mentions of Isaiah, and others, it would seem that even today you still question your faith.
I dont care what any Christian would tell you about that, but I consider it only to be good thing.

Anything that you rely on, must constantly be tested, so that it CAN be relied upon.

If your questioning makes you someday once again doubt the existance of a god, then I hope it brings peace of mind as well.
That admittedly, isnt something that Atheism can offer like religion can, unless you gain such comfort from nothing but truth.
But remember, just as the lack of belief does not shape right and wrong, the true measure of a human is not what religion, if any, she follows.

If however, your uncertainty brings resolve, and a better understanding of your own self, then I highly encourage that too.
If a strengthend faith in God will bring comfort, and well-being, then wether or not God actually exists, you and those around you will benefit.

But let me ask you one question.

If (hypothetically) you woke up tomorrow, and discovered that God did not exist...

Would you feel any different about yourself?
Not about life in general, or your entire worldview....

Just the person you are, right now.

Considering your mentions of Isaiah, and others, it would seem that even today you still question your faith.
I dont care what any Christian would tell you about that, but I consider it only to be good thing.

Anything that you rely on, must constantly be tested, so that it CAN be relied upon.

If your questioning makes you someday once again doubt the existance of a god, then I hope it brings peace of mind as well.
That admittedly, isnt something that Atheism can offer like religion can, unless you gain such comfort from nothing but truth.
But remember, just as the lack of belief does not shape right and wrong, the true measure of a human is not what religion, if any, she follows.

If however, your uncertainty brings resolve, and a better understanding of your own self, then I highly encourage that too.
If a strengthend faith in God will bring comfort, and well-being, then wether or not God actually exists, you and those around you will benefit.

But let me ask you one question.

If (hypothetically) you woke up tomorrow, and discovered that God did not exist...

Would you feel any different about yourself?
Not about life in general, or your entire worldview....

Just the person you are, right now.

I continue to question my faith because a belief unquestioned is worthless to me. I look at it more that I am questioning what I believe, why I believe it, and what proof I have in my own life to support that belief. I don't think I am really questioning God so much as my own personal idea of Him. The day I quit looking at what I believe about God and why will probably be the day I either die, or give up on life all together.

As for your question, I am who I am regardless of what belief system I have, so much of my personality and moral system is based on my philosophy of the world at large and wouldn't really change much if there wasn't a God.

I continue to question my faith because a belief unquestioned is worthless to me. I look at it more that I am questioning what I believe, why I believe it, and what proof I have in my own life to support that belief. I don't think I am really questioning God so much as my own personal idea of Him. The day I quit looking at what I believe about God and why will probably be the day I either die, or give up on life all together.

As for your question, I am who I am regardless of what belief system I have, so much of my personality and moral system is based on my philosophy of the world at large and wouldn't really change much if there wasn't a God.


You may not believe this considering my sometimes militant stance against organized religion, but what you just wrote is precisely what I was hoping you would say.

Youre one of the smart ones.

To be fair, and answer my own question, mine wouldnt change much if there was a God.

how dare you lump us atheists in the same thread as these fake atheists who call themselves "agnostic".

how dare you lump us atheists in the same thread as these fake atheists who call themselves "agnostic".

Ha! Your fellow atheists are ruining the agnostics' good name.